Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
to lead the pentagon while we are at war. republicans have never before felt the need to filibuster a cabinet nominee in the history of the country but apparently this is the guy worth waiting 224 years to spring it on. it has never happened before, but why not now? heck. the white house is not pleased. quote, today's action runs against both the majority will of the senate and our nation's interest. this waste of time is not without consequence. we have 66,000 men and women deployed in afghanistan and we need our new secretary of defense to be part of significant decisions about how we bring that war to a responsible end. next week is brussels the united states will meet with allies to talk about transition in afghanistan at the nato defense ministerial. for the sake of national security it's time to stop playing politics with our department of defense and to move beyond the distractions and delay. allow this war hero an up or down vote and let our troops have the secretary of defense they deserve. remember when the top democrat in the senate harry reid declared just a few weeks ag
with us. nbc's chief correspondent. what are you hearing at the pentagon. >> officials knew this was coming although they didn't know the exact timing. this one has set off alarm bells, particularly because of the size of the blast. we're not relying on north korea claims here. south korea's seismic readings on the blast said it was somewhere about 6 or 7 kilotons, which could make it anywhere from 3 to 6 times more powerful than any previous weapon they set off before. north korea did claim they did this with a much smaller warhead, which would indicate they could be making progress miniaturizing a missile that could be launched at the united states. that's north korea and nobody is taking that seriously at this point and quite frankly, that's impossible to prove. within minutes, it seemed, after the blast was reported, the white house responded and president obama called it a highly provocative act that undermines regional stability and threatens ultimately u.s. national security. the president said it demands swift and credible action by the international community. that'
are desperate to solve this problem. >> if you had a choice of saving the pentagon or playing golf with tiger, what would you do? >> i'd play golf with tiger. but that's two guys talking here. i don't begrudge the president two days off. he's earned that. >> he needs it. >> and the congress isn't there for nine days either. my point s neither side seems to view this as urgently as the american public. >> oh, no. i wasn't doing that as a subtle dig. i would golf with tiger and figure out a way to save the pentagon. >> maybe while you're golfing with tiger. maybe tiger had some ideas. i don't know. >> long time between holes on that course. >> good things happen when presidents are golfing with famous people. back in 1997 bill clinton got a phone call while he was golfing with michael jordan in vegas. he got the horrible news that -- true stroory. i get to say this because i'm a former politician. he got the news that if he did nothing, the budget was going to balance itself alone without any of his help. so he quit, rushed to the airport and came back saying, we have to do something fast so i
to be running the pentagon. >> sam? >> well, i slightly disagree with robert. >> i thought you might. >> you know, actually it's funny because some of these questions did produce interesting, illustrative answers. for instance, when ron johnson got hillary clinton to say what difference does it make? well, it does make a difference. the problem i found with the questions was they ended up stepping on the news. they became so demonstrative and so theatrical that they ended up stealing the spotlight from the answers. that did a disservice in some respects to the question. >> is the real story the feeder of the questions or hagel's fumbling performance? i think it's the latter. i think hagel had a dismal performance at that hearing. did he seem competent to run the pentagon? there were a lot of questions even among democrats after that hearing whether he's ready. >> i don't disagree with that. i think hagel had a really poor performance. what i'm saying is for these senators -- if you looked at what ted cruz was asking about, association with an israeli diplomat that basically 99.9% of the coun
, will be with the pentagon. it is only when the nation views itself as being at peace that diplomacy can take some kind of equal footing. until we get to place where we do something as dramatic as repealing or refusing to reauthorize, the authorization of the use of military force and we end our hot wars, when we have a transparent discussion about what our activities are in terms of drones and targeted killing, only at the point the nation decides to call itself at peace can diplomacy actually ascend to some kind of parity. unless and until we reach that moment, it is impossible, politically and institutionally to get there. >> at some point i want to talk about when they announce in the spring that the u.s. is going to transition to no longer being in the lead role in afghanistan when they make that announcement this spring. i want to talk to you about whether or not it's significant if they're going to rename the operation in afghanistan, whether operation enduring freedom. >> that's really interesting. >> that will be our next conversation. >> hopefully before then. >> okay. chris hayes, thanks. ch
wife. >> right. >> those benefits, the pentagon no matter how much they want to, they can't do those things. >> right. >> because they are precluded by law because of doma. >> and secretary panetta and the president, they did all they could under the law. and that's what a lot of people don't understand. here is another story charlie told me. she said when she was doing her live interview, she also went to see her then congressman from new hampshire. and she told her story. and the congressman said oh, but you're okay. you live in new hampshire. you're legally married in new hampshire. that's legal. so you're taken care of. so her congressman didn't even know that her wife was treated as a second class citizen and didn't enjoy the benefits that other military families enjoyed. so if the congressman didn't know, you know, the american public has no idea. so we need to continue telling charlie's story. >> the reason that i wanted to play that particular clip of her lobbying gene shaheen there, gene shaheen obviously somebody who has been very supportive of her. but you see when she tel
of senator hagel. those who don't want this man as pentagon chief will stop at nothing. they're trying to slow the process of his confirmation, anything to give them time to find something to bring the man down. question, who are they try king to bring down? is it president obama's pick for secretary of defense? or is it the man the american people have chosen? is it about a confirmation or a desperate push to undermine the president's second term. listen to those attacking senator hagel and you'll hear the yelps of pain, this motley crew of neocons and the sun belt feel. what they hate, despise, really, is the fact that now in the history books, the american people voting in great numbers reject their war-reich jinglistic notions of what america stands for.
to oppose his nominees for top cabinet slots at the pentagon and cia. republican senator lindsey graham threatened to hold up those picks until the white house delivers more information about the attacks in benghazi. >> i don't think we should allow brennan to go forward for the cia directorship, hagel to be confirmed as secretary of defense until the white house gives us an accounting, did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the libyan government to help these folks? what did the president do? yes, i'm going to ask my colleagues just like they did with john bolton, joe biden said, no confirmation without information. no confirmation without information. >> you are saying that you are going to block the nominations -- you're going to block them from coming to a vote until you get an answer? >> yes. >> now, john mccain has already think that he doesn't think republicans ought to filibuster this. what will you do? you're just going to put a hold on it? >> yeah, i'm not filibustering. this is a national security failure of monumental proportions, and i'm not going to st
is that the pentagon signed deals before the end of the year worth about $5 billion to make sure that the money was flowing before the sequester. >> $400 billion for this one weapon program. >> that's a lot of dough. >> that is a lot of dough. the cover is "the once and future pope." rick stengel, thanks for being with us. >>> coming up next, the first pictures of olympian and double amputee sprinter oscar pistorius after he's accused of shooting and killing his girlfriend. this is a guy who was the hero of london, sort of the field-good story last summer. now he is in jail accused of murder. we're going to have the latest straight ahead on "morning joe." [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. i just served my mother-in-law your chicken noodle soup but she loved it so much... i told her it was homemade. everyone tells a little white lie now and then. but now she wants my recipe [ clears his throat ] [ softly ] she's right behind me isn't she? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. [ clears his throat ] by earning a degree from capella she'more iuniversity, isn't she? you'll have the
the president for lost funding in federal programs and the pentagon over ten years, should the sequestration take place. house speaker john boehner said, quote, today the president advanced an argument republicans have been making for a year. his sequester is the wrong way to cut spending. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell insisted "more than three months after the november election, president obama still prefers campaign events to common sense, bipartisan action." and joining us now for more on this from washington, the former chief economist of the international monetary fund and bloomberg view columnist, simon johnson. he's the co-author of "white house burning: our national debt and why it matters to you," now out in paperback. simon, good to see you this morning. >> nice to be with you. >> simon, if you could help us through this over the next week or so, it doesn't look like there's a path to avoiding the sequestration if you listen to the two sides. so how damaging would this be? because we've heard a couple different versions of it that would have immediate impacts, more than 75
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)